Division Bench set aside the judgment holding petitioner ineligible. Court held Widow category is a reserved category entitled to 5% relaxation despite taking admission post-notification date, allowing appointment.
The appellate authorities are directed to consider the writ petitioner's case for appointment within 30 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 874/2018
----Appellants
Versus
Vijay Laxmi Rajpurohit D/o Bhanwar Lal Rajpurohit, R/o 1-B-61, Old Housing Board, District Pali.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. S. Ladrecha, AAG with Mr. Vikas Choudhary. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khet Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order
26/09/2018
Per Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta:
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Monika Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12672/2017 decided on 22.11.2017, so also the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court dated 05.10.2017 in Manju Bala Vs. RPSC, Ajmer : DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.463/2017 holding inter alia that as per Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and notification of National Council of Teachers’
(2 of 4)
[SAW-874/2018]
Education dated 29.07.2011, the petitioner belonging to General Category having secured 45.16% marks would be entitled for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II (Social Science), notwithstanding the fact that she had taken admission in B.Ed. Couse, after 29.07.2011, the date of the notification.
Mr. S. S. Ladrecha, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that identical appeals laying challenge to aforesaid view arising out of the judgments of learned Single Judge are pending consideration before the Division Bench of this Court and hence, instant appeal be tagged and decided alongwith such appeals.
Mr. Khet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submitted that keeping aside the judgments referred to and relied upon by learned Single Judge, the petitioner is duly eligible and entitled for appointment, as she admittedly belongs to ‘Widow Category’. That being the position, the petitioner is entitled for relaxation of 5% marks in her qualifying marks, even as per the notification of NCTE dated 29.07.2011. As such, if the conditions of advertisement are read as they are, and the condition of having minimum 50% marks in the graduation is taken into account the petitioner (having secured 45.16% marks) is entitled for the appointment, subject of course to relaxation of 5% marks.
In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a Division Bench’s judgment dated 10.08.2018 being DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1122/2017 : Bharti Upadhaya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors .
Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the learned Single Judge has not decided
(3 of 4)
[SAW-874/2018]
petitioner’s case on this count; though in principle he conceded that in view of the recent Division Bench judgment in the case of Bharti Upadhayay (supra), the petitioner is entitled for 5% relaxation and consequently entitled to be considered for appointment.
It would not be out of place to reproduce the extract of the judgment dated 10.08.2018 relied upon by the writ petitioner :
“For proper adjudication of the case, we need to refer to the Notification dated 29.07.2011 with respect to the reservation policy. The same reads as under :-
“ (ii) Reservation Policy :
Relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks shall be allowed to the candidates belonging to the reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH.”
A perusal of the above shows that 5% relaxation is granted to the reserved categories. The language of the provisions for relaxation as reproduced above provides relaxation to the candidates belonging to the reserved categories such as S.C/S.T./O.B.C./P.H. The words ‘such as’ indicate that what follows thereafter are only illustrative and not exhaustive, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another etc. reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 666 . Thus, the categories S.C./S.T./O.B.C./ P.H. are illustrative and mentioned for ‘example’ only. Whereas, relaxation requires to be given to the candidates “belonging to the reserved categories” and ‘widow category’ is a reserved category. The reservation policy as per the Notification dated 29.07.2011 allows relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks to the reserved categories. Admittedly, the widow category is also a reserved category and therefore, cannot be left out of such categories.”
In view of the above factual and legal martix, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for 5% relaxation and thus, eligible for appointment on the post she has applied for. We, therefore, declare her to be eligible to be appointed. Though for different reasons as noticed above, we uphold the ultimate finding of learned Single Judge regarding petitioner’s eligibility;
(4 of 4)
[SAW-874/2018]
without expressing any opinion on the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned.
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner-respondent for appointment, within a period of 30 days from today.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
(SANGEET LODHA),J
A.Arora/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner belonging to the Widow category is entitled to 5% relaxation in qualifying marks under Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 even after the relevant NCTE notifica
Whether the list of reserved categories (SC/ST/OBC/PH) in the Notification dated 29.07.2011 is exhaustive or illustrative if Widow category is not explicitly mentioned.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Monika Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.Referred¶16
Monika Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12672/2017
Manju Bala Vs. RPSC, AjmerReferred¶16
Manju Bala Vs. RPSC, Ajmer : DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.463/2017
Bharti Upadhaya Vs. State of Rajasthan & OrsRelied on¶22
DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1122/2017 : Bharti Upadhaya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors
Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶31
Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another etc. reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 666 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department of Education
The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner
Zila Parishad, Jalore Through Its Chief Executive Officer
The District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Jalore
Vijay Laxmi Rajpurohit D/o Bhanwar Lal Rajpurohit
Sangeet Lodha
Dinesh Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
